Ndaa

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was signed by President Obama on the last day of 2011. This is an unusual occurrence; the National Defense Authorization Act itself has been signed into law every year for the past fifty. The main objection of the NDAA is to allow the government to continue funding national security interests and the military for the next following year. This year’s bills, however, was different. One of the changes that were added on to the bill is any American suspected of terrorism to be detained in military custody without charge or trial. Section 1021 of the NDAA “includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons under the law of war.” Under the regulation of the bill a covered persons is, who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or those responsible for those attacks. A person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners.” It doesn't stop there, in Section 1022 they also added, detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. This authorizes the federal government to hold, without charges, anyone designated an enemy combatant for an unlimited amount of time. To make matters worse, section 1022, subsection a, item 4 allows the President to waive any requirements for proof of the person being an enemy of the state if it is believed to be in the “national security interests of the United States.” The act has declared foreign and domestic a war zone, anyone suspected of plotting against the U.S. can be arrested, and waiver against the inability to prove such person is an enemy combatant. Regardless of whether or not this…...

Similar Documents

...Act (NDAA) passed by Congress on December 14, 2011 “to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes” (112th Congress, 2012) has been a large source of controversy in the United States among its citizens and in the media. Originally, President Obama stated he would veto the act. Stating his reasons included the continuation of military funding; he reversed his decision and signed the NDAA into law on December 31, 2011. The President included with it a signed statement that said his administration would not allow unconstitutional incarceration of American citizens (Herridge, 2012). Unfortunately, a signed statement is not law, and can be later changed or ignored by the current or subsequent administrations. This act is a danger to the freedoms granted to American citizens by the United States Constitution, allowing the government too many liberties to violate those freedoms in the name of terrorism, and can also be used to unjustly target foreigners on American soil.
According to a news release issued by Ohio representative Patrick J. Tiberi, although most of the population believes this act allows American citizens to be detained by simply suspecting them of terrorism, he believes this is not the case. The release includes a portion of the NDAA......

...down the MCA as an illegal denial of habeas corpus. In their ruling, The Court said that a Congressional suspension of habeas corpus involves a clear suspension of the writ and that simply stripping the federal courts of authority does not necessarily suspend habeas corpus. The Court also indicated that the detainees did not have proper procedural safeguards to make certain they obtained fair trials and the ability to establish the nature of the charges against them (Greenhouse, L 2008). When President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in January of this year, he suspended once again the right to habeas corpus for Americans, authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizen without rights of access to a lawyer or a trial. In this most recent act of confrontation, state legislators in Washington have introduced the Liberty Preservation Act (LPA), to defend its citizens from this portion of the NDAA, which was passed by large bi-partisan margins in both the House and Senate.
Along with history, national deliberations have driven the evolution of habeas corpus.
The foremost national debate concerns whether habeas corpus is an inalienable individual right that preceded the State or a freedom granted by federal government. An inalienable right is one that cannot be removed. The Declaration of Independence, of course, embraced inalienable rights as the foundation of liberty when it specified, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all......

...to petition the Government. In Obama’s statement “Today I have signed into law H.R. 4310, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013."”, also known as the NDAA, he stated “Section 533 is an unnecessary and ill-advised provision, as the military already appropriately protects the freedom of conscience of chaplains…” but in the 589 page report 112-479 NDAA 2013 Section 533 is about “Independent Review and Assessment of Uniform Code of Military Justice and Judicial Proceedings of Sexual Assault Cases”. Section 536 is about the protection of freedom of conscience of chaplains…”, but according to the first Amendment, there is a separation of church and state. I understand “typos”, but a statement by Obama should be scrutinized by editors prior to release, would it not?
In the Fourth Amendment people have the right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. While the Fifth Amendment it talks about double jeopardy, not being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The FY 2012 NDAA signed into law by Obama, under section 1021 states, “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.” This was not changed or revised in the 2013 NDAA. Further the 2013 NDAA allows the military to conduct clandestine cyberspace actives under the Secretary of Defense. According to US senator Lindsey Graham, "We've killed 4,700," referring to......

...the arriving officer. Their information was found during the police investigation for this case.
Witnesses
The witnesses in the Minnesota v. Riff case used oral communication when communicating with the police and the defense attorney. During the trial they would have used oral communication as well. The witnesses would also have used visual communication in describing to the judge, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the jury, what they saw. Also, the witnesses would have used written communication during their personal statements to the police and the attorneys.
References:
National Prosecution Standards. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA%20NPS%203rd%20Ed.%20w%20Revised%20Commentary.pdf...

...sometimes abusive power of government. It is the privilege of the United States Military chaplain to ensure that all military personnel have access to a means of worship that is meaningful for them. It should also be the duty of the military chaplain to protect the religious rights of all military personnel. The military is made up of United States citizens who have the right to religious freedom under the First Amendment. By ensuring service men and women’s First Amendment rights are being protected, the United States chaplain is held to a higher authority than his superiors.
In 2012 President Barak Husain Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which infringes on the Bill of Right and in essence nullifies the Forth through the Ninth Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Since the signing of the NDAA, new “Hate Group” descriptions, and groups labeled as “Extremists” by the U.S. Military and Pentagon have emerged which infringe on the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution as well. It is within this legal and political mine fields that the Christian military chaplain will have to navigate in order to continue ministry to the servicemen and women of the United States Armed Forces. These mine fields will be described in more detail when discussing the future of the chaplaincy.
Theological/Biblical Justification for the Christian Chaplaincy
A dominant question that people have about the Military Chaplaincy is, “How do you justify providing......

...to take up to 12 weeks of job- protected leave within a 12 month period for the following reasons: (a) birth of a new baby or placement of an adopted or foster child; (b) care of an immediate family member with a serious health condition. Immediate family members are to include spouse, parent, and children; (c) care of the employee’s own serious health condition. Are dead beat parents entitled to these privileges?
The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on February 5, 1993. The federal law became effective August 5, 1993 and revised with an effective date of January 16, 2009. The FMLA was once again amended by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2010 (www.dop.nv.gov). The amendment by the NDAA expanded FMLA coverage to those eligible employees with family members enlisted in the Regular Armed Forces and coverage for “military caregiver leave” to eligible personnel who are immediately related to certain veterans with a serious injury or illness (www.wagehour.dol.gov).
Explain if it matter that a parent literally had nothing to do with a biological child in order for the child to take advantage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to care for that parent.
Per the Family and Medical Leave Act, an employee can request unpaid leave for up to 12 weeks within a 12 month period to care for an immediate family member, who includes a spouse, child, or parent with a serious health......

...costs, particularly in this time of fiscal constraints…Continued failure to comply would lead, in our view to a failure of fiduciary duty and resource stewardship.”1
The Administration has failed to compile the contractor inventories, let alone integrate them into the budget process. As noted above, DoD is not in compliance, and the non-DoD agencies are even further behind. There is bipartisan and bicameral agreement that spending on contractors cannot be identified and controlled. Yet, this has no discernible impact on advocates for arbitrarily cutting the civil servants, even though they know such cuts would inevitably lead to more privatization.
Arbitrary Cuts for DoD Civilian Employees
The Senate’s version of the FY13 NDAA included arbitrary 5% cuts in funding for the DoD civilian and service contract workforce through 2017, based on anticipated reductions in spending on military personnel. An effort led by Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) to strike the provision on the floor failed, and the arbitrary cuts were included in the resulting conference report. This provision was based on a bill (S. 2065) introduced earlier in the previous Congress that would have arbitrarily reduced the civil service by 5% and then used the savings to partially offset future mandatory cuts in defense spending.
Reductions in the civil service should be based on workload analysis, i.e., identifying the functions that should no longer be performed by the Department and then......

...criteria established in each board's respective Memorandum of Instruction. Once selected for early release, the Army formally notifies the NCO through the chain of command with the first Lieutenant Colonel-level Commander being responsible to personally inform and counsel the NCO of their selection. Options available to the NCO are included in the notification memorandum, such as (when qualified) submission of voluntary retirement ILO involuntary separation and retention on active duty to attain a 20-year regular retirement for those with more than 18 years active federal service, and Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA).
The Army will offer early retirement (TERA) under the authority established in Public Law 112-81 (Section 504, FY12 NDAA) to NCOs with between 15 and 20 years of active service when identified for early separation. Soldiers with less than 15 years of AFS are entitled to involuntary separation pay and may elect to transfer to a Reserve Component to qualify for a non-regular retirement. All affected Soldiers will be given a 12-month period to transition from active service in order to take full advantage of transition assistance programs.
The Army’s ongoing effort with leader development calls for a formal process that retains highly qualified Soldiers who have the greatest potential for future contributions to the Army. These board processes enable continued service decisions in support of enlisted administrative separation policies outlined in......

...MEO generally being treated as if it were another commercial bidder[xix].
By the spring of 2009, public-private competitions would convert federal employee jobs into contractor jobs under Circular A-76 had been suspended, and in most cases remain so. Competitive sourcing is currently only permitted in DoD where the result is to determine how to best source work that is not currently performed by federal employees (i.e. new work, or work currently done by contractors). In March 2009, President Obama reiterated the importance of Congress’ tasks and further directed the OMB to “clarify when governmental outsourcing of services is, and is not, appropriate, consistent with section 321 of the 2009 NDAA. (footnote)
In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (NDAA 2010), Congress imposed a temporary moratorium on new competitions involving functions currently performed by DoD civilian employees until, among other things, DoD reviewed and reported to Congress on various aspects of its public-private competition policies.6 DoD complied with the statutory requirements in conducting its review of public-private competitions and in submitting its June 2011 report to Congress. (footnote) http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/military_law/pdf chapter 15 competitive sourcing and privatization.
According to the Commercial Activities Panel, the group chiefly responsible for many of the recent changes, the “new Circular permits greater reliance on procedures contained in......

...viable reasons why steps like data collection are being taken with the constant threat of Cyber Terrorism. Especially with the ever growing news about credit cards being stolen or the criminal ring from Eastern Europe or finding out that Chinese Nationals are hacking companies looking and collecting information. If there were a better system of checks and balances put in place so no one intelligence agency is holding all of the information, which would be a good start towards not misusing power and accountability. United States citizens increasingly over the past few years are becoming more and more skeptical towards the government and the power that they wield especially with the implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which is an amended part of the Patriot Act.
When the FBI, NSA or some other eye chart demands personal information from telecommunication companies without warrants that has a tendency to throw a lot of red flags which causes unnecessary attention. Actually I shouldn’t say unnecessary attention because it is very important for people to be aware of the issues at hand. Now supposedly the eavesdropping program is reviewed periodically by a team of lawyers to determine if the program is effective and lawful, now that would be a step in the right direction and should help to hinder people’s perspectives.
Just because a blanket term “for the greater good” is thrown over the un supervised infringement on U.S. citizens doesn’t......

...government needs to have the ability to perform nonconsensual blood tests to effectively enforce laws against drunk driving, and Fourth Amendment privacy interests are minimal for motorists. McNeely and Amici counter that there are significant privacy implications in a person’s body, that warrantless blood draws are unnecessary to enforce drunk driving laws, and that the warrant process can be streamlined, removing any exigent circumstances. Missouri argues that because blood naturally dissipates in a person’s bloodstream, evidence of drunk driving is continually and inevitably destroyed. The NDAA asserts that the process for obtaining a warrant is time-consuming because the warrant-seeker must locate a judge and the judge must review the warrant request. Moreover, the time it takes to obtain a warrant can depend on multiple factors, including the day of the week and the time of the day. The NDAA also claims that increases in technology to streamline the process of obtaining a warrant will not be available in every jurisdiction and that such disparity is unviable. The NCDD and NACDL assert that the process for obtaining a warrant and drawing blood typically takes less than two hours. They respond to the inevitable destruction of evidence argument by pointing out that the rate of dissipation is predictable and provides police a reasonable “window of opportunity” in which to obtain a warrant. McNeely notes that many states allow for methods of electronic warrant transmission,......

...son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition;
• To take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition;
• To take care of a child of a person standing in loco parentis. Id. § 2611(12). refers to a person who has put himself in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relation without going through the formalities necessary to legal adoption
• For qualifying exigencies arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is on active duty or call to active duty status as a member of the National Guard or Reserves in support of a contingency operation.
Section 565 of the 2010 NDAA amends the military family leave entitlements of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). These amendments expand coverage for “qualifying exigency” leave to eligible employees with covered family members in the Regular Armed Forces and coverage for “military caregiver leave” to eligible employees who are the spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of certain veterans with a “serious injury or illness”.
Under the amendment, An eligible employee who is a spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin of a current member of the Armed Forces, including a member of the National Guard or Reserves, with a serious injury or illness up to a total of 26 workweeks of unpaid leave during a “single 12-month period” to care for the......

...denial of habeas corpus. In their ruling, The Court said that a Congressional suspension of habeas corpus involves a clear suspension of the writ and that simply stripping the federal courts of authority does not necessarily suspend habeas corpus. The Court also indicated that the detainees did not have proper procedural safeguards to make certain they obtained fair trials and the ability to establish the nature of the charges against them (Greenhouse, 2008). When President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act, hereinafter referred to as the NDAA, in January of this year, he suspended once again the right to habeas corpus for Americans, authorizing the indefinite imprisonment of American citizen without rights of access to a lawyer or a trial. In this most recent act of confrontation, state legislators in Washington have introduced the Liberty Preservation Act, to defend its citizens from this portion of the NDAA, which was passed by large bi-partisan margins in both the House and Senate.
Along with history, national deliberations have driven the evolution of habeas corpus. The foremost national debate concerns whether habeas corpus is an inalienable individual right that preceded the State or a freedom granted by federal government. An inalienable right is one that cannot be removed. If any right can be called “inalienable,” then habeas corpus must be encompassed on that list. As distinguished earlier, the right not to be detained, confined, or imprisoned......

...the defense of the United States and its interests abroad." The most controversial sections observed during the deliberation and aftermath of the act are (as specified above) the authorization of the detention of persons suspected by the government of being involved in acts of terrorism or holding membership in a terrorist organization as enunciated in sub-sections 1021 and 1022 (within Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism,"). These have attracted the widespread disdain seen as a result of their possible legal interpretations and their propensity for abuse at the hands of the Executive Branch. While Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed almost unanimously on September 18, 2011 grants this authority already, the NDAA furthers this authority by “affirming” the AUMF and granting additional specifications for the implementation and regulation said powers. The previously mentioned sections have garnered much controversy, especially within civil liberty watch-dog organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and similar groups (112th Congress).
History/Background
In the closing years of the 19th century the great powers of the world, including the United States and much of Europe, were confronted an unprecedentedly radical movement which centered on the idea of engaging in violent and illegal acts as a means of furthering a political agenda outside of the modes of conventional warfare. This movement, which later became known as......